DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.681/2008 (Old case No.637/2001)
Smt. Dayawati
W/o Late Sh. Satish Chand
10229, Gali Gyarshi Wali,
Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Through Senior Branch Manager
Division-II, Branch Unit No.312
31, Community Centre,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi
2. General Manager/Chairman
BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.,
Shakti Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 22.07.08 Date of Order : 01.12.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Initially, the complainant had filed a complaint No. 637/2001 before this Forum, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2003 and the same was challenged by the complainant by filing a First Appeal No.22/2004 before Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 24.01.2008 allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and send back the matter to this Forum for deciding the same afresh after considering contentions of the appellant/complainant
as well as dealing with the question as to the liability of the employer i.e. respondent no.2. Thereafter, this Forum vide order dated 19.05.10 allowed the complaint against OP No.2 only and directed the OP No.2 i.e. BSES to pay Rs.2 lakhs as insured amount alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. till the date of the realization of the amount to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. OP No.2 BSES challenged the order dated 19.05.10 passed by this Forum by filing First Appeal No.550/10 which was allowed by Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 17.03.2015 and the matter was again sent back to this Forum for deciding afresh as per direction given by Hon’ble State Commission in its earlier order after considering material on record. That is how the complaint is before us.
The relevant portion of the order dated 17.03.15 reads as under:-
“13. The impugned order has been perused. The District Forum has simply recorded the facts of the complaint case and thereafter has mentioned about the passing of the order by this Commission in FA-22/2004 on 24.01.2008. The District Forum has quoted paras 2 to 6 of the judgment of this Commission dated 24.01.2008. Thereafter the written statement of the appellant/OP is stated in the next two paras. Immediately thereafter without discussing the points on which it was remanded back and without discussing the evidence on record has directed the appellant to pay 2 lacs as an insured amount with interest @ 8% to respondent No.1/complainant. The impugned is not dealing with any of the grounds on which the matter was remanded back by this Commission earlier. No. reasoning is also given by the District Forum as on what basis the directions have been given to the appellant to make payment. The District Forum ought to have taken into consideration the relevant pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and thereafter could have dealt with the matter. The impugned order is a non-speaking order. The parties have also not filed copies of evidence/documents which they had filed before the District Forum in the form of affidavits. The directions to the appellant to make payment to the respondent No.1 are not based on any material on record. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a widow of the insured, Shri Satish Chand, who had taken a life insurance policy from OP No. 1 for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on 25.10.1997 on monthly premium of Rs.753/-. The Complainant’s late husband informed the OP-1 to deduct the premium directly from his salary and same be deposited to the OP No.1. The insured died on 27.02.2000. The complainant filed the claim before the OP No.1 with all the documents vide letter dated 21.07.2000. The OP No.1 informed the complainant that the policy had already been expired before the death of the complainant’s husband. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to reconsider the claim but her request to reconsider the claim was declined by the OP No.1. The complainant sent a legal notice on 28.09.2000 through registered letter and UPC which was supposed to be served to the OPs but they have not replied. The OP No.1 vide letter dated 12.10.2000 informed the complainant that “we have referred your case to our divisional office”. But no satisfactory reply was received by the complainant. The complainant has prayed that OP No.1 be directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2 lakhs as the insured amount in respect of policy No. S-120881218 dated 25.10.97 and Rs.2 lakhs as compensation in respect of mental agony, torture and damage for refusal of payment of the assured amount including interest of 18% p.a. since the death of policy holder i.e. complainant’s husband and further Rs.11000/- as notice charges alongwith Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses and the bonus occurred on the policy whatever according to rules and regulations of the OP No.1 of which total calculated claim is within Rs.5 lakhs.
OP No.1 has inter-alia stated that the complainant’s policy was started w.e.f. 25.10.1997 but the OP No.2 failed to pay the premium from June 1998 to May, 1999 even in the grace period. The policy holder was informed vide letter dated 04.09.1999 and 20.11.1999 that the policy had lapsed and the insurer was requested to get the policy revived but the insurer had not get the policy revived. The OP No.2 paid Rs.6024/- as a premium for 8 months together, which was returned by the OP No.1 on 26.04.1999 with a note that “ please note that the insurer policy is lying lapsed due to non payment of the premium contact our branch for revival. Ask LA to contact the branch for revival of the policy.” But the same was not revived by the OP No.2. OP No.1 sent another letter to the OP No.2 on 24.05.1999 stated sending premium only after lapse of policy. The total amount was returned to the OP No.2. OP-1 could not neither accept the premium after the lapses of policy nor could revive the policy its own, even after various notices to OP-2 and insurer they never bother to revive the policy. The OP-2 refunded Rs.6,024/- to policy holder on 28.09.1999 and again sent Rs.4,518/- to OP-1 requesting to adjust the same against the lapsed policy, when the premium were already refunded to the policy holder knowing it very well that OP-1 neither can revive the policy nor it is submitted that policy holder died on 27.02.2000, OP-2 sent the cheque for Rs.4,518/- dated 21.03.2000 to OP-1, after the death of policy holder, the said cheque was drawn after the death of life accured with a Plan to bind the OP-1. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the premium from May, 1998 to March 1999 could not be sent on time to the OP No.1 as the concerned employee remained absent and salary was not prepared. After sanction of the leave the salary was prepared in March, 1999 for 8 months (May, 1998 to December 1998), the premium was deducted from salary. Pay from January 1999 to March 1999 was drawn in April and premium was deducted from salary. Again the insurer remained absent from April 1999 to January 2000 and the said policy was lapsed and was cancelled by the OP No.1 vide letter dated 24.05.1999. A letter dated 20.11.1999 was sent by the OP No.1 to the insurer i.e. Sh. Satish Chand, copy to the OP No.2 informing that the policy had lapsed and asking Sh. Satish Chand to contact OP No.1 for revival, OP No.1 returned the amount of Rs.6024/- and Rs.4518/- which were refunded to the insurer i.e. Sh. Satish Chand. Sh. Satish Chand had also requested OP No.2 to get his money refunded as the policy had already been cancelled by the OP No.1. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. N. P. Nidaria Manager on behalf of the OP No.1 and affidavit of Sh. R. C. Kataria APO (B) on behalf of the OP No.2 have been filed.
The complainant filed the complaint before this Forum. By the order dated 10.09.2003 this Forum dismissed the complaint by holding “As a result of above discussion, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 in rejecting the claim of the complainant or on the part of OP No.2 in sending the premium. Complaint being without any substance is rejected.”
The complainant filed First Appeal No.22/2004 before Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 24.01.2008 allowed the appeal filed by complainant whereby it was observed as under:
“5. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that none of the contentions of the appellant have been discussed by the District Forum nor has District Forum gone to the question as to the liability of the employer if any and District Forum has also not taken into consideration the statement of premium deducted from the salary of the insured, which has been produced before us showing that premium was being continuously paid upto January 2000 i.e. one month prior to his death.
6. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after considering the aforesaid contentions of the appellant as well as dealing with the question as to the liability of the employer i.e. respondent No.2.
Thereafter, this Forum vide order dated 19.05.10 allowed the complaint against OP No.2 only and directed the OP No.2 i.e. BSES to pay Rs.2 lakhs as insured amount alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. till the date of the realization of the amount to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. OP No.2 BSES challenged the order dated 19.05.10 passed by this Forum by filing First Appeal No.550/10 which was allowed by Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 17.03.2015 and the matter was again sent to this Forum for deciding afresh as per direction given by Hon’ble State Commission in its earlier order after considering material on record. The Hon’ble State Commission in its order dated 17.03.2015 observed as follows:-
“12. Earlier the District Forum vide order dated 10.09.2013 had passed an order in favour of the appellant/OP and had dismissed the complaint of appellant/respondent. On an appeal filed by the respondent No.1, this Commission had directed the District Forum to re-decide the matte after considering contentions of the respondent No.1/complainant. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
3. Through this appeal the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the District Forum has overlooked the fact that the employer i.e. respondent No.2 had deducted the premium from his salary by way of an arrangement between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and therefore he was not liable for any consequences arising out of non-deposit of the premium by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1.
4. Counsel for appellant contended that the District Forum has overlooked the statement of respondent No.2 i.e. the employer that the deceased insured kept himself absent from duty w.e.f. May 1998 to March 1999 and without taking any action against him respondent No.2 prepared his salary bill in February 1999 and deducted eight months premium of Rs.6029/- and sent it to respondent No.1.
5. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that none of the contentions of the appellant have been discussed by the District Forum nor has District Forum gone to the question as to the liability of the employer if any and District Forum has also not taken into consideration the statement of premium deducted from the salary of the insured which has been produced before us showing that premium was being continuously paid upto January 2000 i.e. one month prior to his death.
13. The impugned order has been perused. The District Forum has simply recorded the facts of the complaint case and thereafter has mentioned about the passing of the order by this Commission in FA-22/2004 on 24.01.2008. The District Forum has quoted paras 2 to 6 of the judgment of this Commission dated 24.01.2008. Thereafter the written statement of the appellant/OP is stated in the next two paras. Immediately thereafter without discussing the points on which it was remanded back and without discussing the evidence on record has directed the appellant to pay 2 lacs as an insured amount with interest @ 8% to respondent No.1/complainant. The impugned order is not dealing with any of the ground on which the matter was remanded back by this Commission earlier. No reasoning is also given by the District Forum as on what basis the directions have been given to the appellant to make payment. The District Forum ought to have taken into consideration the relevant pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and thereafter could have dealt with the matter. The impugned order is a non-speaking order. The parties have also not filed copies of evidence/documents which they had filed before the District Forum in the form of affidavits. The directions to the appellant to make payment to the respondent No.1 are not based on any material on record. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
14. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to District Forum to decide afresh as per directions given by this Commission in its earlier order after considering material on record.”
The complainant has filed copy of the insurance policy as Ex. CW-1/A. The complainant has filed copies of pay slip as Ex. CW-1/B & Ex. CW-1/C. Copy of intimation proof to OP No.1 as Ex. CW-1/D. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 31.07.2000 as Ex. CW-1/E. The complainant has filed copy of death claim dated 12.10.2002 as Ex. CW-1/H. Legal notice dated 28.09.2000 has been issued to the OPs.
The OP No.2 has filed a copy of letter dated 24.05.1999 received from OP No.1. We mark the same as Annexure-1 for the purposes of proper identification wherein the OP No.1 has informed the OP No.2 that “ we are again forwarding the cheque for Rs.6024/- which we received under employee No. 28753 Sh. Satish Chander. Please note policy is lying lapsed due to non payment of premium. Ask the LA to contact us for revival of policy.” The OP No.1 vide letter dated 20.11.1999 sent a letter to Sh. Satish Chander that an amount of Rs.4518/- sent by the OP No.2 are lying as your policy is lapsed. You are requested to contact for revival of the policy. If no reply is received the amount will be refunded to you with a copy to the OP No. 2. We mark the same as Annexure-2 for the purposes of identification. The complainant vide letter dated nil informed the APO of OP No.2 that his policy was lapsed in the month of June, 1999 and deduction from salary had already been stopped and they are requested to refund the amount. We mark the same as Annexure-3 for the purposes of identification. The OP No.2 issued a cash voucher dated 28.09.1999 wherein the complainant sent the document, that he had received a cheque of Rs.6024/-. We mark the same as Annexure-4 for the purposes of identification. The OP No.2 filed a note sheet dated 27.12.2000 and 04.01.2001. We mark the same as Annexure-5 for the purposes of identification. The OP No.2 has filed the various attendance sheet from 01.09.97, 22.12.98, 20.07.98, 04.01.99, 20.05.99, 02.06.99, 29.06.99 alongwith the affidavit dated 24.06.98 filed by the complainant. We mark the same as Annexure-6 for the purposes of identification.
In view of the documents filed by the complainant as well as OPs, it shows from the salary slip filed by the complainant, that the OP No.2 had deducted the LIC premium for the month of July, 1999, September, 1999, November, 1999 and January, 2000. The deceased died in the month of February, 2000. The OP No.2 deducted the premium from the deceased salary from the above said months but had not produced any documentary proof that they had deposited the amount with the OP No.1 or not. The OP No.1 vide letter dated 24.05.1999 informed the OP No.2 that they are “forwarding the cheque for Rs.6024/- which we sent under employee No.28753 Shri Satish Chand. Pl note policy is lying lapsed due to non-payment of premium. Ask the LA to contact us for revival of policy”. The OP No.1 vide letter dated 20.11.99 sent a letter to the complainant that Rs.4518/- sent by OP No.2 are lying with them as the policy is lapse. You are requested to contact them for revival of policy if no reply is received, OP No.1 will send the money to OP No.2.
It is clear that even after OP No.1 letter dated 24.05.99, the OP No.2 deducted the LIC premium from deceased Shri Satish Chand for the month of July, September, November, 1999 and January 2001. When the deceased policy had already been lapses and OP No.1 returned the amount to the OP No.2. OP No.2 vide cash voucher dated 28.09.99 refund the amount to the deceased Shri Satish Chand, the signature of deceased Shri Chand are in the voucher dated 28.09.99. After returning the amount to the deceased Shri Satish Chand the OP No.2 deducted the LIC premium from his salary for the month of September, 1999, November, 1999 and January, 2000, as submitted by the complainant. Even OP No.2 had the knowledge that the LIC of deceased Shri Satish Chand had already lapsed.
The OP No.1 informed the OP No.2 on 24.05.1999 that
“with ref. to your letter dt 10/5/99 Recd. on 15/5/99 we are again forwarding the cheque for Rs.6024/- which we sent under employee No.28753 Sh. Satish Chand. Please note policy is lying lapsed due to non-payment of premium. Ask the LA to contact us for revival of policy.”
The OP No.1 also informed the deceased Sh. Sh. Satish Chand with copy to the OP No.2 on 20.11.99 that an amount of Rs.4518/- received from OP No.2 are with them as your policy has already lapsed. You are requested to contact the above address, so the policy can be revived. If, no reply has been received from your side they will sent back the money to the OP No.2. Complainant vide letter dated nil sent a letter to the OP No.2 and stated that his policy has lapsed since June, 1999. OP No.2 is requested not to deduct the LIC amount from his salary. The OP No.2 vide petty cash voucher dated 28.09.1999 signed by the complainant as “for Rs. Six Thousand Twenty Four only which was policy deduction from the salary of Jan-99 A cheque of Rs.6024/- received from LIC office and deposited in cash office. SRD against eR No.132114 Dt. 29/6/99 so the refund voucher for Rs.6024/- has been prepared.”
The complainant filed the salary slip for the month of July, 1999 to November, 1999 and January, 2000.
By mistake if the OP No.2 had deducted the LIC premium from deceased Shr Satish Chand salary although he had himself informed the OP No.2 vide letter dated nil that his policy has lapsed since June, 1999 and requested not to deduct LIC premium from salary (the amount of Rs.6024/- had already been received by the complainant vide petty cash voucher dated 28.09.1999). The OP No.2 has not filed any document that an amount of Rs.4518/- has been returned to the deceased Shri Satish Chand. The complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 & 2 as the OP No.1 had already informed the complainant vide letter dated 20.11.1999 that the policy has already lapsed and OP No.2 had already made the refund of Rs.6024/- received from OP No.1 to the deceased Sh. Satish Chander.
We partly allow the complaint and direct the OP-2 to pay the amount of premium for the month of July, 1999, September 1999, November, 1999 and January, 2000 to the complainant i.e. Rs.4,518/- along with interest @ 7% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony undergone by the complainant failing which the OP-2 shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.4,518/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter files be consigned to record room.
Announced on 01.12.2018
